Cytology Proficiency Improvement Act of 2008

I thank my friend and colleague from Georgia, Congressman Deal, for his leadership on this issue and for the time today.

I also want to express my gratitude and thanks to Representative Gordon, who was extremely cooperative and helpful and productive throughout this entire process. I want to thank the American College of Pathology and all of the pathologists across the Nation who are working day in and day out to make certain that they provide quality care for the patients for whom they are charged.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a copy of an article by Dr. George Nagy that documents the dysfunctional federally mandated proficiency test in cytopathology.

The Dysfunctional Federally Mandated Proficiency Test in

Cytopathology--A Statistical Analysis

Proficiency testing in cytopathology and in other

disciplines should be based on firm statistical and

scientific foundations, because test theory in general is a

heavily statistical subject. Statistical considerations have

demonstrated that the design of ``short'' proficiency tests

in cytopathology, including the current federally mandated

test, fundamentally is unsound because of the lack of

sufficient validity and reliability. Examinees too frequently

are misclassified by such short-format tests: Competent

examinees fail the test in surprisingly high numbers, whereas

most of the examinees who have insufficient cytologic skills

eventually pass the test after the allowed retakes. Only

dichotomous tests are suitable for accurate computation of

the effects of test design on reliability, but the

statistical conclusions also are generalizable to

nondichotomous tests. In conclusion, the current federally

mandated proficiency test cannot reliably measure the level

of expertise of cytologists and, thus, cannot assure that

only adequately skilled individuals evaluate Papanicolaou

test samples. To render the test suitable for its intended

purpose, the authors believe that complete redesign of the

test, with the participation of experts in modern test

theory, would be advisable.

Proficiency testing in cytopathology (PTC), which was

established in the 1991 regulations to implement the Clinical

Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLlA'88), has only

recently been enforced on a national scale. For more than a

decade, during which logistical hurdles hampered the

development of a national program for PTC, there was not much

incentive to think about the value and potential of PTC or

its theoretical background or to worry that the test design

was so poor. In 2004, however, the Center for Medicare and

Medicaid Services announced that a national PTC program

developed by the Midwest Institute for Medical Education had

been approved and that the regulations finally would be

enforced on a national level. Suddenly, the shortcomings of

the test were everyone's problem. What followed was a flurry

of comments, articles, proposals, and Internet discussions

about the PTC and its future. Although the testing has

proceeded nationwide in conformity with the original

regulations, the dust has not yet settled on the subject. The

professional organizations agree that PTC, as prescribed in

CLIA'88, is inadequate and is in great need of improvement if

indeed it should remain in place at all. Regarding the

projected revisions, it is a real impediment that some

regulatory authorities that are in a position to make

decisions about the implementation of PTC apparently are

not familiar with most of the theoretical implications of

test theory, which is an exceedingly complicated subject.

So long as the test is mandatory for every practitioner of

gynecologic cytopathology in the United States, it is in

the best interest of all participants for PTC to become a

scientifically well-founded, valid, and reliable quality

assurance method. In the current article, we have

attempted to shed light on some gaps in the knowledge

about the theoretical underpinnings of PTC that seem to

endure in the cytopathology literature.

test theory is statistical

Test theory is a heavily statistical subject. Virtually all

aspects of test theory have been investigated in depth almost

exclusively by educators and psychologists, which is

understandable, because testing is a central issue in their

disciplines. Unfortunately, this valuable body of literature

apparently has been disregarded completely by the federal

authorities that are responsible for PTC regulations.

The statistical apparatus used in modern test theory is

formidable. Many books and

articles written about the subject use highly sophisticated

mathematical tools, including differential and integral

calculus and matrix algebra. One of the reasons for the high

degree of mathematization of test theory in psychology and

education science is that these disciplines deal largely with

intangibles, like motivation, intelligence, understanding,

and adaptability, which are not directly measurable. Such

entities must be studied indirectly, through measurements of

other quantities. That is why psychological test theory

introduced the concept of ``constructs'' that can substitute

for and represent the kinds of abstract attributes mentioned

above. Even so, the highly complicated mathematical and

statistical tools that have been promoted in educational and

psychological test theory fulfill mainly academic purposes.

Most actual problems in everyday testing can be solved on a

practical level that does not use highly complicated

mathematical methods but, at the same time, does not

disregard basic statistical principles.

testing in the physical and biologic sciences

Cytopathology, unlike educational science or psychology, is

an applied natural science, and this is one of the reasons

why PTC can be performed without the application of overly

sophisticated mathematical tools. Interpretation of

Papanicolaou smears, reproduction of cytologic diagnoses, and

measurement of false-negative proportions, among others, are

very complex tasks. By comparison, technically, it is a

comparatively straightforward matter to evaluate the

examinees' ability to assign diagnostic categories to

cytologic changes observed on a slide or computer screen.

Thus, abstract constructs hardly are needed in PTC.

Nevertheless, a certain level of mathematical and statistical

understanding by the designers of the test is crucial if a

fair and scientifically valid system of PTC is to be

established. Most pathologists, including ourselves, do not

have rigorous training in statistics; therefore, if PTC is to

continue, then the regulatory authorities ought to contract

with experts in statistics and test theory who, through

interaction with knowledgeable cytopathologists and

cytotechnologists, would design an equitable and

scientifically well-founded system for the nationwide PTC.

We do not mean to suggest that statisticians have not

participated in the design of cytology testing programs. In

fact, the College of American Pathologists' (CAP)

Interlaboratory Comparison Program for Cervicovaginal

Cytology was designed, implemented, and monitored with the

extensive help of statistical expertise. However, this

educational endeavor was not intended to be a PTC program as

envisioned in the federal regulations. In fact, its original,

scientifically and statistically supported structure

ironically prevented its use as a PTC program because of the

specific requirements of the federal regulations.

short tests and reliability

One of the central problems in the practice of PTC is

reliability, and the reliability of PTC is related closely to

the size of the test sets (the number of the test items or

challenges in 1 test set). ``Short'' tests, which require the

evaluation of relatively small numbers of slides, are

characterized by a high misclassification rate. (The

pervasive effect of sample size on the reliability of

statistical inference is the reason why pollsters use large

samples: The larger the sample, the narrower are the

confidence limits in relative terms. The statistical

estimates inferred from a single sizable sample that has been

chosen by randomization will approach the true parameters of

the population.) Short tests will not prevent the frequent

failure of competent examinees or the passing of examinees

who have less than desirable skill levels. Already in 1991

one of us (G.K.N.), in a report that was written with D.C.

Collins, emphasized that the expected misclassification

rate of such short tests can be surprisingly high and

that, in the case of dichotomous tests, this rate can be

calculated (or approximated) through the use of the

binomial theory of statistics. (A dichotomous test

evaluates the responses to test items as ``right'' or

``wrong,'' without using intermediate results or weighing

of answers. The PTC system used in New York State for 36

years was dichotomous and so was the original

Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal

Cytology. The CLIA'88-mandated PTC is not dichotomous.)

This so-called ``simple binomial error model'' was

described in test theory initially in the 1950s.

The results of the CLIA'88 mandated national PTC in 2005

dramatically demonstrated the effect of misclassification

during short tests, as described previously. According to the

data from the National Cytology Proficiency Testing Update,

9% of the examinees failed the test when they attempted it

for the first time. However, when this group that supposedly

had inferior skills retook the test, curiously, the failure

rate for this second attempt was similar to that for the

entire original group (10%). It appears that the cytologic

skills among those examinees who had failed originally

improved miraculously, allowing 90% of them to pass the

examination, although all of them initially failed. It is

hard to believe that a short remedial training between the

first and second attempt could result in such an impressive

real improvement. The only plausible scientific explanation

is the well-known statistical phenomenon, the Galtonian

``regression toward the mean.'' The majority of failures

during the first attempt were the consequence of

misclassification because of the poor validity and

reliability of the short test and were not caused by the

insufficient skills of those who failed. The failure rate in

all groups of examinees is about the same on the first

attempt and on the second attempt, and previous failures do

not seem to matter much. Essentially, the results of the

CLIA'88-mandated PTC mostly mirror the statistical chances

and not the examinees' skills.

Of course, multiple other variables beyond regression

toward the mean, including experience gained in the technique

of the test, differences in the difficulty of particular test

sets, and even increased skills after remedial training, etc,

also may play a role in the improvement of test results at

the second attempt for individual examinees. However, to

date, we do not have any data or even a plausible explanation

concerning how any of these other factors, with the exception

of regression toward the mean, could produce such a

consistent result.

The Simple Binomial Error Model

Misclassification of examinees by any short test, including

the CLIA'88-mandated PTC, can be demonstrated by means of an

analogy. Strictly speaking, this analogy is applicable only

to dichotomous testing systems. However, in this sense,

dichotomous and non dichotomous systems are correspondent.

For statistical or evaluation purposes, non dichotomous

systems can be made dichotomous at any time, even after the

tests have been carried out. For example, an answer can be

evaluated as correct only if it falls into the appropriate

single category (``success'') and all other answers are rated

as wrong (``failure''). Another solution to this problem in

PTC would be to restrict the number of diagnostic categories

to 2, with 1 category, for instance, ``negative for

premalignant or malignant changes'' and the second category

``premalignant or malignant lesions are present.'' This is

the approach used in the original CAP PAP program with its

``100 series'' and ``200 series.''

The CLIA'88 regulations concerning PTC, with their 4

diagnostic categories and complicated scoring system, do not

fit into the dichotomous scheme. Despite this fact, the

conclusions drawn by using the binomial error model regarding

PTC are applicable to any short test to a large extent.

Example of Simple Binomial Error Model

For the purpose of illustration, let us suppose, that in a

large population (for instance, that of an entire country),

the results from a scrupulous statistical survey using many

thousands of questionnaires and proper randomization indicate

that the proportion of individuals who like to watch

television (TV) is 90%. Because the survey is conducted in a

scientific way and the sample size is very large, this result

is considered highly accurate. The basic question on which

the analogy with PTC will be based is, ``What can we expect

if we ask 10 randomly selected individuals in this population

about their attitude toward TV?'' The most probable result

will be that, in this population, 9 of 10 individuals will

like TV. However, it is reasonable to expect that, in many

samples that consist of 10 individuals, all 10 individuals

are TV fans; whereas, in other similar samples, there may be

only 8, 7, or 6 such individuals. However, it is hardly

conceivable that we will identify as few as only 1 or 2 fans

in a sample of 10 individuals if the principle of random

selection is followed.

Random selection is important. For example, a nonrandom

sample, like one that consists exclusively of nuns in

convents, would not yield a statistically valid reflection of

the entire population; indeed, we may identify only 1 or 2

individuals in such a sample who like to watch TV. Exclusive

selection of nuns or members of any other group with some

special interest would not be compatible with the

principle of randomness. However, to select a nun

occasionally in a sample, with a frequency roughly

corresponding to the proportion of nuns in the entire

population, would be appropriate.

There is a statistical method that uses the so-called

``binomial formula'' for calculating the probability of

encountering 10, 9, 8, 7, etc, TV fans in a sample of 10

individuals from our postulated population. (This method is

not detailed in the current article, but an explanation can

be found in any elementary statistical textbook). The

probabilities even can be looked up in tables that are found

at the end of statistical books. Under the circumstances

outlined above (with a 90% proportion of TV fans in a sample

size of 10 individuals). the probabilities of identifying 10,

9, 8, 7, and 6 TV fans in a random sample of 10 individuals

are 0.35, 0.39, 0.19, 0.06, and 0.01, respectively.

The probability of identifying 5 TV fans under the above-

described circumstances in a truly random sample of 10

individuals is exceedingly small. The succession of numbers

described above represents a ``probability distribution,''

which can be observed in a histogram. This distribution is

interpreted as follows: If, from this very large population,

we take numerous random samples, each consisting of 10

individuals, and ask about their preferences for TV; then we

will find that 35% of the samples would include 10 fans, 39%

of the samples would include 9 fans, 19% of the samples would

include 8 fans, and so on.

If we change the size of the sample, then the magnitudes of

the single probabilities

and their distribution also will change and, along with them,

the probability distribution. If we choose sample sizes of

100 individuals instead of 10, then the probabilities will be

clustered much more tightly around the value of 90% than was

the case in the smaller samples. The larger the size of the

sample, the more reliable is the estimation; in other words,

the observed value in every sample approaches the real

population parameter. It is virtually unimaginable that there

will be only 50 or 60 TV fans among 100 randomly selected

individuals from this population. (Distribution data for such

large samples are not provided even in the tables of larger

statistical reference books: They are not needed, because the

probability distribution for large samples can be found by

the so-called ``normal approximation of the binomial

distribution.'' To perform this method is mathematically

simple, but the results may be slightly inaccurate. There are

complex Web-based Internet tools, however, that calculate

these probabilities very accurately.) Of course this holds

true only if the randomness principle is strictly observed.

How can we apply the reasoning described above to the issue

of sample sizes in PTC? Fortunately, the results of these

binomial calculations can be generalized. The reason why we

can do this is that, if the ``experiment'' qualifies as

binomial, then the specifics of the experiment, whether they

are related to liking TV or to success in PTC, have no

bearing on the values of the probabilities or on the

probability distribution.

True Scores

At this point, we need to review the term ``true score,'' a

concept that is used widely in modern test theory. The true

score of a hypothetical examinee is defined as the average of

the observed or measured scores that would be obtained over

an infinite number of repeated testing by the same test,

provided that the examinee's skills remain indefinitely

stable. For actual examinees, the true score can be estimated

with a small error margin, but its exact value is essentially

unknowable. For instance, if a cytologist screens 100,000

cervical smears, and if his or her diagnoses are correct

98,000 times, then the approximation of his or her true score

is 0.98. Because the accurate determination of the true score

would require an infinite number of repeat testing, which is

not feasible, this true score of 0.98 remains an

approximation. Obviously, we can be rather sure that, when

the same individual screens the next 100,000 preparations,

the approximation of his or her true score will not remain

the same: The chances of this are infinitesimally small. The

estimate of the true score will almost certainly change

slightly, for instance to 0.97 or to 0.99, and so on, for

each successive trial.

It has to be emphasized that assignment of an exact ``true

score'' to a cytologist is somewhat arbitrary for further

reasons. It cannot be expected that anybody's cytologic

skills will remain invariant for a prolonged time. We can

hope, of course, that the professional prowess of cytologists

improves over time. Furthermore, everybody who has ever

screened cytology specimens knows that screening performance

depends on many factors, some of which are extraneous to the

level of cytology skills. On a ``good'' day, a cytologist may

function on a 0.98 score level; whereas, on a different,

``bad'' day, he or she might be less ``proficient.'' Even his

or her experience with particular kinds of cytologic

presentations on the previous day, for example, having seen

an unusual presentation of high-grade squamous

intraepithelial lesion on a quality-assurance review, could

affect decision-making on the current day. Of course, these

and other psychological variables (eg, the effects of anxiety

or tiredness during tests or routine work) cannot be factored

into the statistical considerations. Nagy and Collins,

describing this concept, used the term ``competence level''

instead of ``true score'' in their 1991 article.

Direct measurement of the true score is not possible. What

we have after an evaluation of test results is the ``observed

score,'' which is related to the true score but is not

identical to it. It can be considered an estimate of the true

score.

Comparison of TV Preference and PTC Results

TV preference and PTC results can be compared as follows:

The values derived by the binomial formula are determined

only by the number of trials and the probability of success.

If the ``experiment'' qualifies as binomial, then the

specifics of the experiment have no bearing on the numerical

results. (In statistical parlance, any methods or procedures

that yield raw data are called experiments.) In our TV

example, the number of trials (the sample size) is 10, and

the probability of success is 0.9. These 2 data are

sufficient to calculate the probability distribution for this

specific case. Let us consider now an example of PTC in which

these specifics are the same as described above. The PTC

design prescribes 10 slide test sets (number of trials). A

cytologist who performs routine screening and customarily

renders accurate diagnoses 9000 times among 10,000 screened

slides has an approximate true score of 0.9. (In other words,

the probability of success is 0.9.) When this cytologist

attempts to pass this particular PTC, then the probability

distribution of the possible correct answers will be

identical to the probability distribution observed in the TV

example, because the specifics of the TV experiments are the

same. If this hypothetical cytologist attempts the test many

times, then he or she will read 10 slides correctly in 35% of

the tests, 9 slides correctly in 39% of the tests, and so on.

The numerical values in the 2 experiments are identical.

We also should note that, if an examinee reads 10 slides or

9 slides correctly:which happens in 74% of events under the

circumstances described above, then he or she passes the

test. However, this individual, who essentially has an

adequate true score, will fail a dichotomous PTC 26% of the

time because of the low validity and reliability of the test.

The phenomenon of failure in this case can be called ``type 1

error.'' (The null hypothesis is that ``the cytoscreener is

competent.'') A valid and reliable test is expected to pass

virtually all cytoscreeners with true scores on the 0.9

level; however, any dichotomous test that consists of 10

slides or challenges will misclassify approximately 26% of

such individuals. It is obvious that this test does not

really meet the expectation to determine the competence of an

examinee who had a true score of 0.9.

It needs to be reiterated here that binomial calculations

can be performed only for dichotomous tests. The

probabilities for some well ordered, nondichotomous tests may

be calculated by the use of more complicated multinomial

assessments.

Limitations of the Simple Binomial Error Model

The binomial error model provides only a rough appraisal of

the statistical factors that need to be taken into account in

the design of PTC. One of the drawbacks of the model, as

mentioned above, is that it is applicable only to

dichotomous testing systems. However, the simplicity,

transparency, and mathematical calculability of

dichotomous setups counterbalance every other

consideration. The dichotomous test design makes it

possible to assess the impact of test set size on test

validity and reliability and to calculate confidence

intervals. Thus, the use of a dichotomous test would

confer greater predictability and practicability to PTC.

The effects on test validity and reliability of a

haphazard design, like the CLIA'88-mandated PTC, hardly

are calculable by scientific-statistical means. We do not

state that dichotomous designs would solve every problem

inherent in every type of test, including PTC. However,

given that all other conditions of the testing are equal,

dichotomous tests have insurmountable advantages over

nondichotomous tests.

Size of Test Sets and Rate of Misclassification

Figures (not shown) illustrate the probability

distributions of correct diagnoses for variable test set

sizes and for examinees with different theoretical ``true

scores.'' An ideal and flawless PTC would fail all examinees

with true scores of 0.85, but no test design can fulfill such

requirements. The reliability of the tests improves, however,

as the test sets get larger. For examinees with true scores

of 0.85 or 0.8, the accuracy of the test increases in

parallel with the increasing size of the test sets. (The

failure rates become larger for larger test sets.)

Visualization of the effect of sample size on

misclassification also is possible by tabulation. The more

slides the test set contains, the lower the misclassification

rate. There appear to be anomalies at the set sizes of 9 and

19, in which the misclassification rate decreases for

examinees with low true scores and increases for the more

competent examinees. A test set that consists of 9 or 19

slides would be a very impractical choice. If the passing

level is set at 90% (eg, 9 correct answers for 10 slides in

dichotomous tests), as it is the general practice for PTCs,

then 1 error is allowed for a 10-slide set. Under these

circumstances, to pass a test based on 9-slide sets with a

90% passing grade would be incomparably more difficult than

to pass a test based on a 10-slide set, because a single

mistake would mean an error >10% and, consequently, a

failure. The situation is similar for 19- or 29-slide sets.

The greater grade of difficulty with a 9-slide test set is

reflected in the smaller passing rates for both competent and

less competent examinees. (This circumstance, paradoxically,

improves the accuracy of the test for the participants with

low true scores.) For these reasons, if the passing level is

set at 90%, then only decimal-based test set sizes (10, 20,

30, etc. slides or challenges) should be used.

Another observable phenomenon is the ``law of diminishing

returns,'' in which, as the number of slides in the test sets

is increases, the misclassification rates decrease. However,

the rate of decrease is not level but trails off with

increasingly larger set sizes. For instance,

misclassification of examinees with a true score of 0.8 is

almost halved, from 38% to 20%, when the number of slides in

the sets increases from 10 to 20. The next step, from a 20-

slide set to a 30-slide set, is accompanied by a smaller

relative improvement, and so on.

An important conclusion that can be drawn is that, when the

number of slides is increased in the test sets, the decrease

in the misclassification rate is more precipitous if the true

score is 0.8 or 0.85, ie, on the side of the table for less

competent examinees, than if the true score is 0.95. From our

viewpoint, this is an advantage. The basic purpose of PTC is

not the confirmation of the proficiency of the average

cytologist who performs well but the identification of

individuals who may have problems with expertise and need

remediation. The type 1 error, the failure of competent

examinees, is less consequential than the type 2 error, the

passing

of less competent examinees. The simple binomial model is

more suitable to investigate the latter than the former in

the set-size ranges that are prevalent in the practice of

I thank the distinguished whip for yielding.

On Monday, the House is not in session. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 12:30 for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m.

On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday, no votes are expected.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules, including several important public health bills, H.R. 2464, the Wakefield Act, and H.R. 1237, the Cytology Proficiency Improvement Act. The final list of bills under suspension of the rules will be announced by the close of business tomorrow.

In addition, we will consider H.R. 2016, the National Landscape Conservation System Act, and H.R. 2537, a bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act relating to beach monitoring.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

It's our expectation that, following the testimony of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, the committees will be meeting to not only discuss substantive policy, but also to discuss the supplemental appropriation bill. It would be my expectation that that bill would be on the floor either the end of April or the first week in May. We are cognizant, as the gentleman indicated, of the June period, and so we want to move this significantly before that debate so that there will not be any lag.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Well, there are obviously needs in addition to Iraq that are being discussed, and I would tell my friend that those discussions are ongoing. A decision on what may or may not be added in addition to the supplemental that may be necessary for Iraq, there may be other things, that decision has not been made at this point in time. But I do want to let the gentleman know that that is under discussion.

As the gentleman will recall, last year, when we passed the supplemental, there were domestic priorities that were also addressed, in particular, Katrina, as the gentleman will recall, and some other matters as well. So, that's under discussion.

As you know, we are strong proponents of the PAYGO rule and have adhered to that in all but one instance last year. We did not adhere to it, as you know, with the stimulus package. There was concern, and obviously we didn't want to stimulate and depress at the same point in time, so that was under discussion. But I will tell you on the housing bill itself, Mr. Frank has been working on that with his committee, Maxine Waters and others, and with Mr. Bachus and others on the committee. And we would certainly hope to move a housing bill in the near term, certainly no later than the latter part of this month or the very first days of the next month, so that we can pass a bill that would give relief to those who have either been foreclosed upon or are on the brink of foreclosure. We believe that it is essential for us to try to address what is a national problem and a very serious one. And so, that will also go into the consideration, I think, of how much money is needed, how that will be paid for.

Thank you very much for yielding.

I will say that over the last 7 years, the President has told us things are pretty good. There was never a right time for revenues to be increased. Even in the times when the President was telling us the economy was robust, we were growing, we still weren't paying our bills.

We feel very strongly on this side of the aisle, and Mr. Bernanke, in a telephone conversation with me, said one of the things we didn't want to do, when you and I and Mr. Boehner and Ms. Pelosi were talking about the stimulus package, one thing we did not want to do is exacerbate the long-term debt that confronts us. Mr. Bernanke is very concerned about that. But certainly in the context of wanting to move quickly in an emergency way where we have an economy now that Mr. Bernanke, although he didn't say it was a recession, he certainly gave the implication that we were on the brink of that, we're very concerned about the economic policies, very frankly, that we think have led to that.

But I will say that we have two concerns: Number one, paying for what we buy, not exacerbating the deficit. But clearly we're concerned about getting relief to people that need it in the short term. But my discussions with Mr. Bernanke were, yes, tax increases in the short term he thought were not helpful, but he wanted to make it very clear that he thought making the debt worse over the long term, whether it's for international expenses or domestic expenses, was not helpful to the economy in the long term.

I thank my friend for yielding.

I won't debate that now, but I would be interested in discussing it at some point in time because, as you know, in those years revenues fell short of the administration's projections in the previous years. So that, although revenues did increase, you're absolutely correct, as revenues have every year over the last 50 except for 2, they increased less than the administration had projected.

I thank the gentleman for the question.

We all agree this is an important agreement, but as you know, there are still major long-standing issues to be resolved, violence being one of them, labor rights being another, trade adjustment assistance, which the gentleman referred to, as another. If the White House does choose to send up the agreement, we will discuss the full range of options available to us under the TPA and the House rules.

I thank the distinguished gentleman from New

York, and I thank the original author of this legislation, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Davis), and I thank the distinguished Speaker for her leadership as well, and my colleagues.

Congressman Higgins, this is Juneteenth Week for those of us who come from the States in which we honor this very special holiday. And so it is very special to stand today to acknowledge how important, how moving a time this is, particularly in the State of Texas where Major Granger landed in Galveston 2 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, which means that the slaves that were held in the State of Texas were held 2 years longer than any slaves in the United States in the region in which slavery was the law. I would like to acknowledge Rep. Al Edwards who is the Father of the Juneteenth Holiday in Texas.

So we hold this as a sacred time, a time of jubilee and celebration, but also of pain and anguish for knowing that we were held in bondage in the State of Texas for a period of time longer than the time that was declared by the President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln.

I'm delighted to be one of the original cosponsors to acknowledge what this day really means. And as we celebrate it throughout the week in Texas, this past weekend I celebrated with the Acres Home Community and their Juneteenth celebration and the Zydeco music and the fun that seniors and children alike would have in fellowship and understanding our history.

And many people don't recognize that it is as important a date as might be days that we commemorate Black History Month, special days such as the acknowledgment and the celebration of the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, or the 40th anniversary of the signing of the Civil Rights bill or the March on Washington or the tragic assassination of Dr. King, and this happens to be the 40th year.

It is a time when we renew ourselves in having a respect for freedom. And Major Granger, who came and acknowledged, gave way to decades and years of celebration.

He also gave way to something called Freedom Watch on New Year's Eve. Many people believe that is a celebration for the new year. But in old years or years back, black churches used to watch on New Year's Eve calling it Freedom Watch to be able to celebrate freedom; and it was the idea of knowing that on January 1, 1863, the slaves would be free.

This is a time to acknowledge that our history should be remembered, that we should teach it to our children, that we should take this history to ourselves, if we will, embed it in our hearts and our souls, and make sure that as we embed it, that we live what this history stands for. It stands for determination, tenacity, strength, character, integrity.

And we must fight against all of these things that enslave us now, and that is, of course, drugs and crime and poverty. And I hope that this Congress, in passing this legislation, will renew our commitment to ridding this Nation of drugs and the devastation of how it destroys families and that we will commit ourselves to building housing, we will commit ourselves to educating our children, we will commit ourselves to building our families, we will commit ourselves to peace, because that's what an emancipation means: Emancipating yourselves from things that were wrong, that were ill.

The Emancipation Proclamation rid this Nation of slavery. Its dastardly effects still continue even today as it separates races and religions, but we have a commitment as the United States Congress to use this floor today to be able to stand against what was a horrific time in the history of America where we held slaves, we debased them, and we rejected humanity and human rights and dignity; but now we must come and respect through this resolution.

So I thank the Congressman for his leadership on managing this bill. I particularly pay tribute to my colleague and friend, Congressman Danny Davis, and to all of my constituents in the State of Texas who will now celebrate this day with a gospel celebration on Saturday, a parade on Saturday, and many, many family reunions around the idea of being emancipated.

Let us live freedom. Let us stand for freedom by building this Nation free of the ills of drugs and poor housing and poverty and war, and that will truly be a commemoration of Juneteenth because Juneteenth is a freedom, and it is emancipation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask to address the House for one minute for the purpose of inquiring about next week's schedule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the majority leader, for information about the schedule for next week.

I thank the gentleman for that.

I have a couple of questions on things that we haven't discussed. First of all, the supplemental budget, I know General Petraeus is in Washington next week, and I believe Ambassador Crocker. The President sent up a supplemental request in February of last year. By approximately June of this year we're told that the Army will run out of money, and that by July, their ability to use transfer authority will be exhausted. I wonder at what point, in conjunction with or following the Petraeus visits next week, does the leader think we will be talking about that supplemental request.

And I yield.

I thank the gentleman for that. I think that date is important, and we need to be sure and be aware of it as we move through this process, as you are.

The spending bill, I know as this administration comes to an end, I'm confident that the White House has had lots of requests from the administration side for additional spending, which I believe they have held the line on. Does the gentleman have a sense of whether this bill will be able to be contained to the defense supplemental, or will it possibly get bigger than that?

And I would yield.

Well, I do appreciate that. And I just say for my friend's information that we've certainly discouraged the White House, we're hoping, not only discouraged them from moving forward with any new additions, and I think they have decided not to do that and will be concerned about this going as quickly as possible and meeting these defense needs rather than being tied down.

Another topic is housing. On the other side of the building they've been talking about housing this week. I know that Chairman Frank has some proposals on housing. I really have two questions there: One, when do you anticipate some housing legislation on the floor? And two would be, do you expect that that housing legislation will follow the PAYGO rules of this Congress, or will those rules be suspended for that housing discussion?

And I would yield.

I think in that time frame there is a chance there will be some administrative actions taken as well, and that may be an important part of that debate.

I do know that this week Mr. Bernanke testified before the Joint Economic Committee, and part of his testimony was that he thought that this would be the wrong time for any tax increases. And I would hope we could maintain some openness on that PAYGO discussion as it relates to this housing concern that people are facing.

I would yield.

Well, I wouldn't quarrel with the gentleman about not having a good time for tax increases since '01 and '03, but revenue actually has increased during that period of time. I think in '05, '06 and '07 we may have set records of increased revenues, percentage over last year. So, you used the term revenue, and I think you meant taxes, because we did see some revenue increases during that time, and they were significant. I think over 14 percent in FY05, and double digits in the next 2 years.

I would yield.

Well, while we don't want to enter into this debate too fully, on the projections, even though

we still had deficits in those years, which I regret for a number of reasons, those deficits were always less at the end of the year than we had thought they were going to be at the beginning of the year because revenues exceeded projections. That's why the deficit was less.

The third topic, I think my last topic today, is, we're at a point in the congressional calendar where it's at least possible that, under the TPA, the Trade Promotion Authority rules, the President will send the Colombia Trade Agreement up because of the number of days left that under TPA would require a vote during the calendar we've put in place. And I wonder if the gentleman has a sense of whether the Colombia Trade Agreement process will go through the normal Trade Promotion Authority process, or if that process could possibly be shut off.

And I would yield.

I thank the gentleman, and I yield back.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1237) recognizing the historical significance of Juneteenth Independence Day, and expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that history should be regarded as a means for understanding the past and more effectively facing the challenges of the future.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, as a member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, I present for consideration H.R. 1237, which recognizes the historical significance of Juneteenth Independence Day, and expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that history should be regarded as a means for understanding the past and more effectively facing the challenges of the future.

H.R. 1237 was introduced on June 4, 2008, and has over 70 Members of Congress who also support Juneteenth, or what many call Freedom Day or Emancipation Day. The measure was considered and reported from the Oversight Committee on June 12, 2008, by voice vote, which brings us to today's floor consideration of the measure.

Most of us are aware, Madam Speaker, Juneteenth commemorates the day Union General Gordon Granger and 2,000 Federal troops arrived at the Galveston Island, Texas to take possession of the State and enforce the emancipation of its slaves 2\1/2\ years after the enactment of the Emancipation Proclamation.

On June 19, 1865 General Granger read the following Order Number 3: ``The people of Texas are informed that, in accordance with the proclamation from the Executive of the United States, all slaves are free. This involves an absolute equality of personal rights and rights of property between former masters and slaves, and the connection heretofore existing between them becomes that between employer and hired laborer. The freedmen are advised to remain quietly at their present homes and work for wages. They are informed that they will not be allowed to collect at military posts, and that they will not be supported in idleness either there or elsewhere.''

In receipt of this message, African Americans who had been slaves in the Southwest celebrated June 19 as the anniversary of their emancipation, and continued the tradition to inspire and encourage future generations.

For more than 135 years, Juneteenth Independence Day celebrations have been held to honor not only the freedom of African Americans but also to encourage self-development and respect for all cultures.

Juneteenth has been recognized as either a State holiday or observance in Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Delaware, Idaho, Alaska, Iowa, California, Wyoming, Missouri, Connecticut, Illinois, Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, Colorado, Arkansas, Oregon, Kentucky, Michigan, New Mexico, Virginia, Washington, Tennessee, Massachusetts, and North Carolina, as well as the District of Columbia.

The faith and strength of character demonstrated by former slaves remains an example for all Americans, regardless of background, religion, or race.

Madam Speaker, I ask that we, too, show our support for Juneteenth Independence Day by agreeing to adopt H.R. 1237 without reservation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for as much time as she may consume.

Madam Speaker, I urge passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.